Is NPR getting stale?
I ask this having recently read Jack Shafer’s filleting of Cokie Roberts (click here if you must, but be forewarned—it ain’t pretty). The nub of his beef: What he perceives as Cokie’s bland, empty-calorie beltway analysis. Says Shafer:
“Roberts doesn’t just voice the conventional wisdom; she is the conventional wisdom.”
What do you think? Carefully read his essay and peruse the lively discussion it has sparked in Slate’s discussion forum and then tell me what you think.
One thing I’m struck by: Would Shafer have written something this harsh during the NPR/Slate partnership era?
Yes, Shafer would have written it at any time. He’s a take-no-prisoners commentator. Not always right, but most of the time he hits the target.
As for Roberts, I know someone that worked at NPR years ago and that person’s assessment of what Roberts offers is pretty much the same as Shafer’s — and that was from, say, 10 years ago. Not much has changed. It’s just that NPR folks don’t speak ill of their own. At least not publicly.
Roberts is paid a pretty penny to provide conventional wisdom on Monday mornings. I suppose it’s a sort of tribute payment to her for the early years of work she put in at the then-nascent NPR and because of her Senatorial parentage. Her “connections,” in theory, give her “access” to insider info and perspectives that we get to hear.
Yet the chattering classes in DC all talk to each other incessantly (and the press is in on it), so there’s really no “insider” information Roberts can offer that we haven’t already heard elsewhere.
All that said, I like Roberts well enough. But NPR could cut this cost and little to nothing of objective value would be lost.
Next up: Daniel Schorr, another perennial listener favorite that offers occasional warmed-over platitudes in an insight-free (and innoffensive) way. Roberts and Schorr are familiar and “comforting” voices for long-time listeners, but they don’t offer enough substance to justify their payroll expenses when so many real reporters — folks working in the field to produce original reporting — have been laid off at NPR.
One true test of good management is whether you can assess a situation without bias, face up to the facts and then take decisive action. These are two instances where NPR has taken the easy road — perhaps because of the scalding that came with showing Bob Edwards the door (a tough, but justified and ultimately successful, move).
Thanks for the great response which really warrants a full post in the blog.
Perhaps this issue is a tad too “inside baseball” for your average public radio listener, but I am strongly of the opinion that the public in “public” radio should have a strong stake in these matters and should not be shy about sounding off on them. They do after all make it possible for us to do what we do and quite literally own the airwaves (a point most are likely unaware of).
Public radio is mission-based. It serves the public. Too exclude the public from a meaningful roll in decision-making or allow what we do grow stall and harden into shtick is a grand disservice to the public.
Thanks again for your insights passionately expressed.
Let the conversation continue!